Re: [PATCH for mm] Remove iBCS support

Adrian Bunk
2008-01-24T17:25:55Z

On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 03:34:17AM +1030, David Newall wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > But Linux kernel development is not driven by people producing hot air
> > about what they wish to see in the future, Linux kernel development is
> > driven by people sending patches.
>
> Removal of code is not development. It's the opposite of development.

Removing dead code makes:
- the kernel smaller,
- the kernel faster and
- makes it easier to maintain the non-dead code.

All of these are considered useful by the people who actually
contribute to the Linux kernel.

> At one stage iBCS2 support DID work. Now it doesn't. Now there's an
> argument that the remaining infrastructure should be removed. This is
> the wrong direction to take.

When did iBCS2 support work in a plain ftp.kernel.org kernel?

And if you consider iBCS2 support that important I can only repeat that
the language on Linux kernel are patches, not hot air.

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed